View Single Post
Old 04-09-2007, 09:28 AM   #99
Next-Gen Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3,575
Rep Power: 0 Nicato is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

Originally Posted by Mike Doolittle View Post
Way to miss the side of the barn.
I'm Sorry, Mike, but if you want to have a meaningful discussion then you are going to have to expand on what exactly it is I am missing. Or is it easier to pretend as if I'm missing something rather than construct a coherent argument?

Right, so, enter string theory's proposition that we are part of an infinite series of multiverses which spawn other universes. We've covered this territory already.
I don't see what the justification is for your "we've covered this territory already" remark is. Lest we forget, you did ask me a fucking question about what I meant by the butterfly effect.

OH really? Perhaps you'd care to propose an alternative? God as the creator is the ONLY option that allows the universe to have intrinsic, rather than ascribed, purpose.
The fact of the matter is that your argument is intrinsically flawed. It doesn't matter if I can name one or one hundred different theories as to what caused the universe--the very fact that you don't have any positive evidence for your hypothesis is enough to make it a false dichotomy. Example: the fact that I may not have be able to give you a secular theory as to what caused the diversity of life on this planet doesn't mean that a god is the "only alternative."

You are invoking "god of the gaps." Plain and simple.

I'm sorry but this could be a whole other thread. Brush up on your religious studies. It's not my job to educate you.
How you can continue to play the bully while acting like the victim is nothing short of astounding. Seriously, Bill O'Reilly should take notes.

Nevermind the fact that I asked you to expand on a concept you proposed. I mean, why should you have to, given the fact that every one of your assertions has been perfect. Of course, had you asked me to expand on a concept I proposed (like say the butterfly effect) and I had told you to go read a book, you would have thrown a hissy fit--and had I answered it honestly, you would have dismissed it (as you apparently did).

In this case, the "finite point" is the very beginning of the universe itself. So whatever triggered this event was not within the universe itself -- because there was no universe.
I fail to see how something being in the beginning of somewhere makes it both nothing and nowhere. If the "finite point" was at the beginning of the universe, then it was still in the universe, and therefore subjected to its laws. Try again.

Well, that was convincing. Here's my rebuttal to that amazingly perceptive response: No, it doesn't.
Hm, stick with "you're missing the side of the barn." It really seems to be working out for you.

Of course, I shouldn't have to explain what is so obviously self-evident:

Mike: "But the fact that the supernatural itself can't be naturally observed or quantified (for obvious reasons) does not mean we can't see evidence of its existence."
Nick: Yes it does. (But y'honor, look all the people who didn't see me rob the bank!).

Let's break it down:
Fact: We can't bring about positive evidence from something we can't observe.
Fact: We can't observe the supernatural.
Fact: Without positive evidence we, we have no means of ascertaining an exhaustive conclusion. (btw, here is were the bank robber allegory comes from.)
Fact: We cannot posit only negative evidence and find to come to an exhaustive conclusion.

Drumroll, please: The very fact that we have no positive evidence for X means that we can't observe evidence for X's existence. I can't believe I had to explain that.

Funny because a) they didn't, and b) agnostic skepticism has been a core tenant of everything I've argued; at no point have I asserted to have irrefutable knowledge of these things. The fact that you continually accuse me of making definitive statements of fact demonstrates your complete inability to grasp the fundamental concepts of my argument.
Yes, how could I mistake language like "logical necessity" and "only alternative" for definitive claims? What was I on?

On the first point, that's nonsensical and you didn't support the argument in any way, so I'll assume you were (again) grasping at straws.
Hey, Mike, if you could manage to get your head out of your bum for two seconds, you'd realize that my claim is self-evident. And for your benefit I'll take it slow:

"If the universe is infinite--truly infinite--then all events are inevitable." Now, what does infinite mean? Take your time. "Having no bounds or limits." What does inevitable mean? "Impossible to avoid or prevent." Now, let's restate my claim to make it tard-proof:

If the universe has no bounds, then all events are impossible to avoid. "...that's nonsensical..." It takes sense to make sense.

On the second point, how do you define intent?
Read a book. It's not my job to educate you.

How do you decide that the universe has no design?
Again, I'll go slow: there is no evidence of design, especially perfect or divine design. You're familiar with evidence aren't you? It's that thing you could find if it was nailed to your forehead.

Through all your pussyfooting though, you've managed to avoid answering the fucking question. Where is the evidence of design Mike? And if designed, how do you explain the inefficiencies and redundancies?

Because there is no natural cause, or infinite string of causality, to explain the origin of the universe. This goes back to the very fact that we exist being such powerful evidence for God's existence.
Easy, cowboy. You might want focus on digging yourself out of your self-causing universe paradox first.

See above.
Answer the damn question. I know, I know, your use of "perfect" was unfortunate. But you did say it so you're going to have to defend it. Ordered as opposed to what, Mike?

How does an ordered system arise of nothing?
The same way your arguments do.

Again, you're making a false dichotomy. The options aren't necessarily your god or nothing.

Probability is our ability to predict the likelihood of one event happening as opposed to another. Randomness is lacking any reason or purpose.
Then our universe is probably random.

Actually, it's a fact of physics.
Seriously, unless you're going to throw up an equation, you can stop invoking physics. It's like amateur hour.

There are many, many top-tier physics out there and most of them are managing to miss your "logical necessity" (which is to say your god). How could that be? I mean if it really was the case that the "only alternative" to your god was nothing, then why isn't Stephen Hawking making your argument? Surely a man capable of doing physics in his head could conclude what you claim is so obviously evident.
Nicato is offline   Reply With Quote